unified-notifications-ops
Skill1 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Operate notifications as one ECC-native workflow across GitHub, Linear, desktop alerts, hooks, and connected communication surfaces. Use when the real problem is alert routing, deduplication, escalation, or inbox collapse.
5 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- renepf/claude-skillsedited, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- davidanthonyn/claude-skillsword for word, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- gongyijie85/dsh-eccedited, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- Fmarzochi/EGCedited, first seen Sep 16, 2026
- SamuelNDCE/claude-super-skill-libraryword for word, first seen Aug 1, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- SamuelNDCE/claude-super-skill-library★ 1100% same
- davidanthonyn/claude-skills★ 0100% same
Edited · 3
- Fmarzochi/EGC★ 6193% same
- gongyijie85/dsh-ecc★ 899% same
- renepf/claude-skills★ 099% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository269 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .codex/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- examples/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/common-agents.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-development-workflow.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-git-workflow.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-performance.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/common-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/golang-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/kotlin-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/php-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/python-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/swift-testing.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-coding-style.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-hooks.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-patterns.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-security.mdCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/typescript-testing.mdCursor rule
- agent-introspection-debuggingSkill
- agent-sortSkill
- api-designSkill
- article-writingSkill
- backend-patternsSkill
- brand-voiceSkill
- bun-runtimeSkill
- claude-apiSkill
- coding-standardsSkill
- content-engineSkill
- crosspostSkill
- deep-researchSkill
- dmux-workflowsSkill
- documentation-lookupSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- eval-harnessSkill
- everything-claude-code-conventionsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. 17 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
17
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 9
Use this skill when the real problem is not a missing ping.
- Common: line 27
Start from what already exists:
- Common: line 34
Prefer ECC-native orchestration over telling the user to adopt a separate notification product.
- Common: line 38
never expose tokens, secrets, webhook secrets, or internal identifiers
- Common: line 44
default to digest-first when interruption cost is unclear
- Common: line 45
do not fan out every event to every channel
- Common: line 46
if the real fix is better issue triage, hook policy, or project flow, say so explicitly
- Common: line 50
Treat the lane as:
- Common: line 69
If the workspace has no severity model, build one before proposing automation.
- Common: line 82
Call out what ECC already owns.
- Common: line 89
should this interrupt, batch, or just log?
- Common: line 119
If ECC already has the primitive, prefer:
- Common: line 165
prefer one strong lane over many weak ones
- Common: line 166
prefer digests for medium and low-signal updates
- Common: line 167
prefer hooks when the signal should emit automatically
- Common: line 168
prefer operator skills when the work is triage, routing, and review-first decision-making
- Very specific: line 169
prefer project-flow-ops when the root cause is backlog / PR coordination rather than alerts
- Very specific: line 170
prefer workspace-surface-audit when the user first needs a source inventory
- Common: line 171
if desktop notifications are enough, do not invent an unnecessary external bridge
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Unified Notifications Ops
Use this skill when the real problem is not a missing ping. The real problem is a fragmented notification system.
The job is to turn scattered events into one operator surface with:
- clear severity
- clear ownership
- clear routing
- clear follow-up action
When to Use
- the user wants a unified notification lane across GitHub, Linear, local hooks, desktop alerts, chat, or email
- CI failures, review requests, issue updates, and operator events are arriving in disconnected places
- the current setup creates noise instead of action
- the user wants to consolidate overlapping notification branches or backlog proposals into one ECC-native lane
- the workspace already has hooks, MCPs, or connected tools, but no coherent notification policy
Preferred Surface
Start from what already exists:
- GitHub issues, PRs, reviews, comments, and CI
- Linear issue/project movement
- local hook events and session lifecycle signals
- desktop notification primitives
- connected email/chat surfaces when they actually exist
Prefer ECC-native orchestration over telling the user to adopt a separate notification product.
Non-Negotiable Rules
- never expose tokens, secrets, webhook secrets, or internal identifiers
- separate:
- event source
- severity
- routing channel
- operator action
- default to digest-first when interruption cost is unclear
- do not fan out every event to every channel
- if the real fix is better issue triage, hook policy, or project flow, say so explicitly
Event Pipeline
Treat the lane as:
- Capture the event
- Classify urgency and owner
- Route to the correct channel
- Collapse duplicates and low-signal churn
- Attach the next operator action
The goal is fewer, better notifications.
Default Severity Model
| Class | Examples | Default handling |
| Critical | broken default-branch CI, security issue, blocked release, failed deploy | interrupt now |
| High | review requested, failing PR, owner-blocking handoff | same-day alert |
| Medium | issue state changes, notable comments, backlog movement | digest or queue |
| Low | repeat successes, routine churn, redundant lifecycle markers | suppress or fold |
If the workspace has no severity model, build one before proposing automation.
Workflow
1. Inventory the current surface
List:
- event sources
- current channels
- existing hooks/scripts that emit alerts
- duplicate paths for the same event
- silent failure cases where important things are not being surfaced
Call out what ECC already owns.
2. Decide what deserves interruption
For each event family, answer:
- who needs to know?
- how fast do they need to know?
- should this interrupt, batch, or just log?
Use these defaults:
- interrupt for release, CI, security, and owner-blocking events
- digest for medium-signal updates
- log-only for telemetry and low-signal lifecycle markers
3. Collapse duplicates before adding channels
Look for:
- the same PR event appearing in GitHub, Linear, and local logs
- repeated hook notifications for the same failure
- comments or status churn that should be summarized instead of forwarded raw
- channels that duplicate each other without adding a better action path
Prefer:
- one canonical summary
- one owner
- one primary channel
- one fallback path
4. Design the ECC-native workflow
For each real notification need, define:
- source
- gate
- shape: immediate alert, digest, queue, or dashboard-only
- channel
- action
If ECC already has the primitive, prefer:
- a skill for operator triage
- a hook for automatic emission/enforcement
- an agent for delegated classification
- an MCP/connector only when a real bridge is missing
5. Return an action-biased design
End with:
- what to keep
- what to suppress
- what to merge
- what ECC should wrap next
Output Format
CURRENT SURFACE
- sources
- channels
- duplicates
- gaps
EVENT MODEL
- critical
- high
- medium
- low
ROUTING PLAN
- source -> channel
- why
- operator owner
CONSOLIDATION
- suppress
- merge
- canonical summaries
NEXT ECC MOVE
- skill / hook / agent / MCP
- exact workflow to build nextRecommendation Rules
- prefer one strong lane over many weak ones
- prefer digests for medium and low-signal updates
- prefer hooks when the signal should emit automatically
- prefer operator skills when the work is triage, routing, and review-first decision-making
- prefer
project-flow-opswhen the root cause is backlog / PR coordination rather than alerts - prefer
workspace-surface-auditwhen the user first needs a source inventory - if desktop notifications are enough, do not invent an unnecessary external bridge
Good Use Cases
- "We have GitHub, Linear, and local hook alerts, but no single operator flow"
- "Our CI failures are noisy and people ignore them"
- "I want one notification policy across Claude, OpenCode, and Codex surfaces"
- "Figure out what should interrupt versus land in a digest"
- "Collapse overlapping notification PR ideas into one canonical ECC lane"
Related Skills
workspace-surface-auditproject-flow-opsgithub-opsknowledge-opscustomer-billing-opswhen the notification pain is billing/customer operations rather than engineering
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

